|
FirmhandKY -> RE: is it possible to have a rational discussion in P and R? (8/30/2011 7:17:44 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf
I don't block those people. It is the one's that either 1) Just use personal insults 2) Never have substance to their statements and is the same post just reworded, over, and over, and over, 3) Those that show no interest in actually discussing things, and just yell party line rhetoric ALL THE TIME.
I believe I have six people on hide total. It cuts down on the white noise distractions, as there are less posts to read, and if I am in a bad mood it helps to keep me from posting emotionally.
Your 3 point test identifies what I call "aggressive/shrill/shill posters" (ASSes, in other words), putting them on hide subtracts nothing from the discussion.
I've only got three people on hide, and its definitely raised my enjoyment of the forums, and part of the reason I voted "Yes", you can have a rational discussion.
You also are able to have a rational discussion, as some have pointed out, by picking your battles, and simply ignoring (if not hiding) some of the normal dissing and insults that will come your way.
The reason for much of the seemingly pointless insulting is generally (1) to get your excited (and distracted), or (2) to feed their own internal emotional needs, or (3) to play to the crowd. Or a combination of all three. Escalating generally serves their purposes, and distracts from mine.
Not that there isn't a time and place for some hard words.
I've noticed over time that there are basically two main types of "insulting posters".
First, the "holy-rollers": people who come in all eager to save the masses and educate us poor noobs about the world's real positions and facts. They pick up a lot of opposition and often "flame-out" after a short period of time, unless they get a clue.
It happens on all sides of the political divide. An example on "my side of the aisle" is lockedaway. The man was passionate, and more often than not correct in his gross theory (IMO). But he was alienating people unnecessarily, got excited when he was jumped on for the insulting way that he posted and spent more time trading insults than explaining his position and views. And he spent a lot of effort to post in great detail. (It can be a lot of work in saving the world, yanno.)
On the left, there is a slightly different process and methods, but the results are similar.
Second, we have the "insult packs". I've got to admit (and please excuse me), this tends to be generally left-of-center posters (although not exclusively) They may have some valid points, but they do two things that really distracts from any kind of real discussions: they seem to straw man the hell out of some people, and they rarely spend much time to "expand and revise" their posts and position, but make plenty of bald statements and throw barbs.
We have all probably been guilty of being in both groups. Sometimes being part of the "insult pack" is a valid technique to get someone to pay-fucking-attention. But if members of the "pack" aren't willing to occasionally slow down, forgive, and draw out someone that they are overwhelming into a real discussion ... they can poison the entire forum.
Firm
|
|
|
|
